Persons with proper name nominal aphasia have found the names of people hard to recover compared to recovering common names. They understand the words that are presented to them but tend to bury the name shortly after it is presented. In contrast to prosopagnosia, proper name nominal aphasia is caused by left hemisphere damage/lesions. This upset is characterized by a selective inability to recover proper names compared to common names. Because of this, it has been argued that these two classs are processed in independent tracts in the encephalon. An illustration of an person that represents an damage of remembering proper names, but has no trouble in remembering common names is patient Personal computer, reported by Semanza and Zettin ( 1988 ) . Patient Personal computer is a really terrible instance whereby he could n’t call any celebrated faces or topographic points but had no job calling different types and classs of objects. But this instance has been reported to be the most terrible.

Harmonizing to Martins and Farrajota ( 2007 ) , proper name nominal aphasia and common name nominal aphasia could be associated with the degree of trouble attributed to the trial stimulation. In order to prove this hypothesis, they examined two patients that had a complementary form of damage in name retrieval and were similar in age, gender and cultural background. Whilst ACB has impairment in remembering names of objects, JFJ has impairment in remembering people ‘s names. The same stuff was used for both patients. St. martins and Farrajota ( 2007 ) found that JFJ ‘s damage of proper name nominal aphasia was restricted to the lexical degree or the lexical entree phase. However, ACB has trouble recovering common names which proposes that his damages are localised to the lexical retrieval degree, therefore demoing that the dissociations between these two damages follow different independent procedures and is non needfully because of the degree of trouble. This survey shows a clear dual dissociation between the two damages.

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!

order now

The presence of a dual dissociation could intend that comparative trouble amongst proper names and common names is untrue. Lyons, Hanley and Kay ( 2002 ) show farther support for this claim.They describe an alienated patient, FH, who has common name nominal aphasia. Semanza and Sgaramella ( 1993 ) believe that FH ‘s damage demonstrates a clear dual dissociation with proper name nominal aphasia. Similarly, FH, is said to hold the exact opposite damage of patient APA ( Miceli et al, 2000 ) . APA could non remember semantic information about people she could non call, whilst FH was able to call and remember biographical information. This happening gives more support to the thought that knowledge about people can be processed in its ain nervous tract ( Kay and Hanley, 1999 ) . Furthermore, patient BG ( Harris and Kay, 1995 ) demonstrated that she could remember specific facts about famous persons and familiar people, although she could non call them. This gives farther support of a separate nervous subsystem and that this preserved cognition is stored in her semantic memory. In contrast, patient APA could non remember elaborate semantic information about people that she could non call, proposing that her damages lie within the semantic memory ( Miceli et al, 2000 ) .

Harmonizing to Lyon et Al ( 2002 ) , patient FH shows a clearer dual dissociation with proper name nominal aphasia than other antecedently reported patients. Furthermore, Ellis et Al ( 1992 ) suggested that FH ‘s damage is semantically based and non due to difficulty in look. Support for this claim comes from FH ‘s trial consequences. FH did non make good on the McKenna ‘s ( 1997 ) trials of word image fiting and comprehension trials. Both these trials require entree to the semantic cognition shop. Furthermore, FH continually made semantic mistakes when asked to call objects. In add-on to this, FH found it highly hard to remember any semantic information about objects he could non call. All this proves that it is a semantic based damage and has nil to make with treating ocular information. These findings show that it is non the relation trouble which creates trouble in recovering certain names, whether they are proper names or common names.

In add-on, FH did truly good in recovering biographical information about familiar people. This demonstrates that FH ‘s stored cognition is non disrupted for familiar people, even though the semantic cognition shop for objects was disrupted. Nevertheless, FH was capable to recover the businesss of all celebrated face presented to him that he was capable to call. This is the same as control subjects. It seems so that patient FH may supply grounds against theories refering face processing, particularly that of Bruce and Young ( 1986 ) who claim that remembering a individual ‘s name depends on the ability to remember semantic information.

Geographic locations and names of people are both classified under proper names, but surprisingly, patient FH was impaired at recovering the names of geographical locations and this suggests that the semantic system stand foring geographical names is different from the semantic system associated with information about people familiar to them. Lyon et Al ( 2002 ) hence argue that the dual dissociation shown between patients FH and APA is related to damage to two different independent nervous constituents of the semantic system. This gives farther grounds that it is non the existent degree of trouble of remembering proper names but instead distinguishable harm to nervous constituents of the semantic system.

Patient ML ( Kay and Hanley, 2001 ) , similar to FH, could besides remember semantic information of people, but could non make so for objects. Both FH and ML, hence, provide greater grounds that semantic cognition of people is processed independently to that of semantic cognition of objects. For this ground, this clear dual dissociation between FH and APA can non be attributed to the fact that proper names are by and large more hard to remember than common names. Rather, a more convincing account is the sphere specific hypothesis of semantic memory suggested by Caramazza and Shelton ( 1998 ) . They claimed that there is a distinguishable separate nervous location that holds the different type of semantic information in the encephalon. For illustration, animate beings and workss could be associated to a separate nervous subsystem than objects and tools.

Many instances of proper name nominal aphasia and common name nominal aphasia have been reported and have been described in footings of the semantic comprehension degree ( Bredart, Brennen & A ; Valentine, 1997 ) . This is because proper names and common names differ in their semantic singularity. Proper names can non be attributed to other words, whilst common names refer to constructs and hence other equivalent word could be used to call the same thing. Hence, proper names contain ‘fragile ‘ associations, whilst common names can be retrieved from several cognitive entree points. Because proper names can non be substituted by another word, harmonizing to Cohen ( 1990 ) , this makes them more hard to larn and recover. Cohen ( 1990 ) argue that because people ‘s names are alone to the individual, it is more hard to remember than geographical names that can be attributed to multiple people. Similarly, it was besides argued that proper names have really few semantic attributed and hence their retrieval is much more hard. Furthermore, Cohen ( 1990 ) believes that proper names lack ‘meaningfulness’.A To show this, Cohen ( 1990 ) asked topics to remember information about people ( names and ownerships ) . The ownerships were either ‘meaningful ‘ or meaningless ( non-word ) . During a memory trial, proper names and non-word ownerships were recalled at the same rate which was lower than for the meaningful words. This shows grounds for Cohen ‘s position on why proper names can be more hard to recover than common names.

It has been established that some patients find it hard to remember proper names, whilst others have trouble recovering common names. Furthermore, there have been some instances of patients who have a more selective damage of proper nominal aphasia that is purely confined to people ‘s names. There have been a few histories trying to explicate this determination. Carney and Temple ( 1993 ) argue that the happening of a face-specific nominal aphasia suggests that it follows a separate mechanism in the encephalon and hold even referred to this damage as ‘prosopanomia’.A Alternatively, Lucchelli and De Renzi ( 1992 ) believe that this occurs due to a ‘severity ‘ factor, since names of people are by and large more hard to recover than geographical names. Furthermore, Fery et Al ( 1995 ) proposed that the dissociations found in proper name nominal aphasia can be related to other factors of acquaintance and age of acquisition.

In order to see which account is better suited for these findings, Hanley and Kay ( 1998 ) study 10 patients with ‘prosopanomia ‘ . It seems that consequences of this survey have provided support to Lucchelli and De Renzi ‘s ( 1992 ) claim that specific damages of proper name nominal aphasia can be related to its badness. This comes from the fact that the lowest face calling scorer patient in the specific naming job group, named more faces than the highest scorer in the general proper name nominal aphasia group. The control group performed really good ( ceiling consequence ) when calling the faces and hence the likeliness that the set of faces for the low scorers were harder than the faces presented to the high scorers is non applicable.

Harmonizing to Fery et Al ( 1995 ) , it is likely easier to larn the names of geographical locations better than names of celebrated people because of a greater sense of acquaintance. Alternatively, it could be because geographical names are able to be ‘adjectivised ‘ . However, these two suggestions need to be investigated further to acquire a clearer image as to which hypothesis is more valid.

Although, there seems to be a turning consensus that proper names are by and large more hard to recover than common names, this has non been confirmed by experimentation ( Cohen and Burke, 1993 ) . The ‘baker-Baker paradox ‘ has offered experimental grounds for this anecdotally supported place. McWeeny et Al ( 1987 ) explain the ‘baker-Baker paradox ‘ , proposing that larning a face belongs to a baker is well easier than larning that a certain face belongs to a Mr Baker. Furthermore, Hittmair-Delazer et Al ( 1994 ) developed another methodological analysis to back up this claim. Repeating supra span lists of words in alienated patients demonstrated that there is a important weaker precedence consequence when the list consisted of proper names, compared to when it consisted of common names. This is even true in healthy topics. Therefore, it seems that proper names are more hard to recover than common names.

As mentioned antecedently, names are by and large more hard to remember than other information known about the individual, whether it is avocations, businesss or ownerships. Young, Ellis and Flude ( 1988 ) conducted a survey and found that topics were able to remember biographical information ( e.g. business ) about a individual much faster than the individual ‘s name. In a similar history, Cohen ( 1990 ) found that topics recalled people ‘s ownerships and businesss much better than their names.

In decision, grounds has now shown that the procedures involved in recovering proper names and common names use separate independent tracts in the cognitive system of the encephalon. Furthermore, there are distinguishable nervous webs and locations specified with classs within the proper name ‘s class. Although there have been a few statements proposing that proper names are more hard to retain than common names, the presence of a clear dual dissociation easy refutes that, particularly when two complementary forms of damage are tested with the same stuffs. Therefore, these ascertained damages can non be attributed to the degree of trouble, but instead it could be that the tract involved in proper name nominal aphasia is more source-demanding than the 1 associated to common name nominal aphasia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *